Memphis, TN March 29-April 2, · PDF fileMemphis, TN March 29-April 2, ... Conceptual...
Transcript of Memphis, TN March 29-April 2, · PDF fileMemphis, TN March 29-April 2, ... Conceptual...
1
Type of Visit: First ◙Continuing
Combination Probation Focused
Accreditation Visit to:
UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS,
Memphis, TN
March 29-April 2, 2008
NCATE Board of Examiners Team: Mark Goor, Chair Timothy W. Kopp Gladys R. Capella-Noya Meghan Harper L. Nan Restine Melissa King
State Team: Karen Greenockle, Chair Linda B. Johnson Dorothey Valcarel Craig Sharon Anderson Morgan E. Branch
State Consultant: Martin Nash, Tennessee Department of Education NEA Representative: Debbra D’Angelo
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 4
II. Conceptual Framework 6
III. Findings for Each Standard
Standard 1 7
Standard 2 13
Standard 3 17
Standard 4 21
Standard 5 26
Standard 6 30
IV. Sources of Evidence 35
3
SUMMARY FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNIT
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
Institution: University of Memphis
Standards
Team Findings
Initial Advanced
1
Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
M
M
2
Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
M
M
3
Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
M
M
4
Diversity
M
M
5
Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and
Development
M
M
6
Unit Governance and Resources
M
M
M = Standard Met
NM = Standard Not Met
4
I. INTRODUCTION
The University of Memphis is one of Tennessee’s three comprehensive doctoral-extensive
institutions of higher learning and is the flagship of the Tennessee Board of Regents system. The
University of Memphis was founded under the auspices of the General Education Bill, enacted
by the Tennessee Legislature in 1909. Known originally as West Tennessee State Normal
School, it became West Tennessee State Teachers College in 1925, Memphis State University in
1957 (with full university status), and the University of Memphis in 1994. The University of
Memphis is a learner-centered, metropolitan research university capitalizing on its urban setting.
The university draws over 85 percent of its enrollment from the city of Memphis and several
surrounding counties. With an enrollment of 21,000, the university graduates 3,000 students
annually.
The last NCATE visit was in spring 2001. After that visit, Ric Hovda was appointed dean. Dean
Hovda reorganized the administrative structure and began a college-wide self-study of programs
with the goal of achieving unit accreditation and specialized professional association recognition,
even though SPA review is optional in Tennessee. The dean appointed an associate dean for
administration and graduate studies, an assistant dean for professional development, and a
director of assessment. In 2004, a director of teacher education was added to the dean’s staff.
There are four departments in the college. National searches resulted in the appointment of three
new chairs. A thorough review of the conceptual framework resulted in a new model with major
commitments adopted by all departments in 2006. Further, in 2006, the College of Education
Assessment System (COEAS) became fully functioning. In May 2007, Dean Hovda left the
university, and Michael Hamrick was appointed interim dean.
This was a joint accreditation visit with the Tennessee State Department of Education. The
national team of six members, a state team of five members, a state consultant, and an NEA
representative collaborated on the research, verification, and discussion for the six NCATE
standards. The state team will make program approval recommendations. The NCATE Unit
Accreditation Board (UAB) reports its decisions regarding the NCATE standards to the
Tennessee Board of Education. According to the state protocol, the Board of Education accepts
the UAB and state team recommendations.
School counseling, music education, art education, consumer sciences education, business
education, and speech language pathology are accredited by national organizations. Evidence of
their accreditation was available in the document room.
The COE houses or coordinates nine baccalaureate teacher preparation programs, 18 post
baccalaureate initial and advanced preparation programs, and 41 graduate degree programs. The
University of Memphis Office Of Extended Programs offers classes at a number of convenient
locations throughout the metropolitan area. However, only the Jackson and Millington Centers
provide programs in their entirety. The Jackson Center hosts five initial and advanced teacher
preparation and other school professional preparation programs. The Millington Center offers
only the school administration and supervision program. The BOE and state accreditation team
interviewed the director, full-time and adjunct faculty, and candidates of the Jackson Center as
well as faculty and students from Millington during the NCATE visit on the Memphis campus.
5
The unit offers one online program in collaboration with other Regents institutions in Advanced
Studies in Teaching and Learning. Although candidates can select the University of Memphis as
their “home” university, this is a Tennessee Regents degree.
The unit was prepared for the visit, and there were no circumstances that influenced the outcome.
However, on the Sunday of the visit, the university won a basketball game that qualified them for
the NCAA Division I Final Four, and everyone was happy.
6
II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
During the 2001 joint accreditation, the unit’s conceptual framework was built around
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model. Dean Hovda’s new emphasis on continuous self-study
encouraged the faculty to reexamine the conceptual framework and its themes and commitments.
A broad-based, college-wide committee worked for two years to develop drafts and seek
department approvals. The new “living” document organized around preparing leaders with
commitments to diversity and effective practice for urban and metropolitan environments was
approved by all departments. The vision for the unit is to become a national leader in the
preparation of urban and metropolitan professionals. The visions for the college and university
align with the new conceptual framework. The new commitments are guided by six action
principles and norms of professional behavior to guide all faculty and candidates.
The knowledge base consists of research, standards, and best practices. The research base is built
on studies of the learning process, cognitive development, characteristics of learners, and
effective teaching. Standards for the knowledge base come from Tennessee state standards,
which are founded on INTASC and national SPA standards. Best practices for this knowledge
base emerge from the framework laid out by current national reports on what makes a good
teacher.
Coherence is evident in the way the institutional report addressed the conceptual framework in
each standard. During the visit, the conceptual framework was evident in the poster session,
course syllabi, field work policies and assessments, and the unit’s assessment system. All
faculty and candidates were clear when discussing the vision of the college and the conceptual
framework as seen in their programs.
Diversity is specifically addressed in the core values. As an institution dedicated to urban and
metropolitan environments, the University of Memphis identifies diversity as a key value. The
unit adopted five diversity performance standards. The unit-adopted dispositions show further
evidence of a commitment to social justice and equitable learning opportunities.
A commitment to technology is evident in the smart classrooms, technology labs, support for
faculty and candidates, and effective unit data gathering system for assessment. The unit
assessment system is well summarized and aligned with the conceptual framework and all
standards.
7
III. STANDARDS
In its responses to each standard, the team should indicate when differences exist among the
main campus, distance learning programs, and off-campus programs.
Standard 1
Information reported in the institutional report for Standard 1 was validated in the exhibits and
interviews. (If not, provide an explanation and indicate the pages of the IR that are incorrect.)
x Yes No
Element Unacceptable Acceptable Target
1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates –
Initial Teacher Preparation
X
1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates –
Advanced Teacher Preparation
X
Summary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:
The COE offers 27 initial licensure programs at both the undergraduate (BSED) and graduate
(MAT) levels, of which one is an alternative licensure program offered on the main campus and
three are offered at the Jackson campus. All secondary licensure programs are post-
baccalaureate. In all programs at each of the four transition points, content knowledge is assessed
through coursework GPA, key program assessments, and outside measures like the Praxis II.
Most data exhibits are online and reference SPA reports, program level Annual Progress Reports,
the COEAS database, and selected summaries prepared by unit assessment personnel.
Praxis II is a licensure requirement in Tennessee and an entrance requirement for the secondary
MAT initial TEP. Scores for 2003-2006 indicate that candidates have sufficient education and
content knowledge for their licensure areas. Title II data report verify the pass rates reported in
the IR. Preliminary raw data for 2007 indicate a 96 percent pass rate. Additional indicators of
general education and content knowledge are completion of at least 45 semester hours at a
minimum 2.5 GPA for admission to BSED programs, and at least six semester hours of
prescribed graduate courses at a minimum 3.0 GPA for MAT and post-baccalaureate licensure
only programs. GRE (3.5 on Analytical Writing) or PPST (173 on writing exam) scores are also
required for initial post-baccalaureate candidates. Bachelor’s candidates must pass PPST
(Reading 174, Writing 173, and Math 173) or ACT (22+) or SAT (1020).
Courses and assessments differ across main campus initial licensure programs, but key
assessments in candidate coursework are identified and aligned to standards for each program
and offer comparable data indicating sufficient general education and content knowledge for
candidates. Descriptors vary between programs but all key unit assessments are scored on a
progressive scale of three levels corresponding to unacceptable, acceptable, and target ratings.
Extensive review of SPA reports and COEAS (the unit assessment database) reports found that
scores across all initial programs indicate candidates possess sufficient content knowledge. Data
range from 0 to 13 percent at level 0, 0 to 100 percent at level 1, and 0 to 100 at level 2 for
individual assessments and assessment items reported by standard. In all programs, well above
80 percent of candidates scored at acceptable or target levels. Data for at least two semesters
8
were reported for each program, and most programs have four semesters of data.
Middle grades programs are new programs with conditional state recognition, but data are
reported in COEAS and indicate candidates at both the BSED and MAT levels have sufficient
content knowledge. Candidates’ Praxis II content scores for core subjects literature, math,
history/social studies, and science fall well within national averages, and acceptable/target
composite scores from key assessments range well above 90 percent, indicating that middle
grades candidates have acceptable levels of content knowledge.
Jackson campus Elementary Education BSED candidates passed Praxis II content tests well
above 80 percent in the four content areas for both fall and spring 2007. Key assessment scores
for the same semesters indicate more than 90 percent of candidates reach acceptable or target
levels of content knowledge on assessments and assessment items by standard.
Praxis scores for the alternative licensure program (The Three R’s middle grades, a two-year
grant with two cohorts focused on candidates changing careers to education) indicate sufficient
general education and content knowledge for alternative candidates. These candidates are half-
time employees of LEAs working in classrooms while completing additional coursework.
Assessments differ somewhat from other main campus programs; e.g., clinical practice is
compensated educator work evaluated by the building principal (100% met standard for
employment). The program is not designed to be sustained beyond the grant and focuses
assessment on the research questions in its design. It is an intensely personal program for both
candidates and faculty with strong relationships and positive outcomes. Evidence from
interviews and review of available data indicate alternative candidates have appropriate general
education and content knowledge.
Survey data from “Content knowledge candidate reflections” for fall 2006 and spring 2007
average well above 4 on a scale where 4 is strong and 5 is very strong, indicating that candidates
feel competent and prepared in their content areas. Program completer survey data for 2006-2007
indicate that 90 percent are satisfied or very satisfied with content knowledge attained as
candidates. Employer survey data for 2006-2007 show that 94 percent are satisfied or very
satisfied with content knowledge of candidates. Survey data are aggregated across programs and
levels. Interviews with faculty, candidates, and cooperating school faculty indicate strong
satisfaction with candidates' content knowledge.
Some secondary MAT programs have no candidates and limited data. Business Education –
MAT had no data but also has no current candidates. Dance is a new program with limited data
available for review.
Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation:
Data indicate that candidates in the seven advanced programs for teachers have acceptable levels
of content knowledge in their program content areas. One hundred percent of early childhood
education MS candidates completed content knowledge coursework at the acceptable level or
above for fall and spring 2007. IDT MS candidates scored at the acceptable or target level for all
content knowledge assessments for the same semesters, as did PETE MS candidates. The special
education MS has only had one completer (100 percent acceptable or above in key assessments)
9
in the past two years and currently has no full-time candidates. The reading MS also has low
enrollment numbers, with acceptable or target scores on key assessments. All five candidates in
fall 2007 passed the Praxis II content area exam. ICL MS LS is another small program (two in
fall 2007), but key assessment data again indicate candidates meet or exceed acceptable
performance levels. The ICL MS annual program report for 2006-2007 states that its twenty
candidates demonstrated full mastery level of content knowledge on all key assessments. Review
of Jackson campus data indicated no significant differences in content knowledge performances
from candidates in main campus programs.
Review of candidate work samples supports these data, as do the exit and follow-up surveys.
Interviews with candidates and faculty indicated strong content knowledge for advanced
candidates.
1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teachers
– Initial Teacher Preparation
X
1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teachers
– Advanced Teacher Preparation
X
Summary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:
Data for initial programs indicate candidates have acceptable or target levels of pedagogical
content knowledge for teachers. Overall unit faculty supervising clinical practice ranked at least
95 percent of all initial candidates as acceptable or proficient on the Framework for Evaluation
and Professional Growth of Teachers for fall 2006/spring 2007. Examination of data broken out
by program reveals no significant differences from the general ranking. Review of data sets
reported in program APRs and SPA reports and the key assessment data from COEAS all
indicate that 87 to 100 percent of initial candidates perform at acceptable or target levels on
assessments of their pedagogical content knowledge. Findings are consistent with exit and
follow-up surveys of graduates, completers, and employers. Interviews with candidates and
faculty indicate strong candidate pedagogical content knowledge. Review of candidate work
samples across initial programs supports assessment and survey data.
Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation:
Data for advanced teacher preparation programs indicate candidates have acceptable or target
levels of pedagogical content knowledge. As reported in the 2006-2007 annual program report
(APR), all ECED MS candidates met or exceeded the acceptable levels of pedagogical content
knowledge on key program assessments. Other programs report similar levels of pedagogical
content knowledge from key program assessments. Interviews with candidates and faculty along
with review of candidate work samples and sampling of COEAS data indicate candidates have
sufficient pedagogical content knowledge for teachers.
1c. Pedagogical and Professional Knowledge and
Skills for Teachers – Initial Teacher Preparation
X
1c. Pedagogical and Professional Knowledge and
Skills for Teachers – Advanced Teacher
Preparation
X
Summary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:
Data for initial programs indicate candidates have acceptable or target levels of pedagogical and
10
professional knowledge and skills for teachers. Sampling of key assessment data in COEAS and
review of SPA and APR reports indicates 90 percent or more initial candidates achieve
acceptable or target level performances on items related to pedagogical and professional
knowledge and skills for teachers. All programs provide strong technology training and
assistance to candidates. Review of candidate work samples across initial programs indicates
high levels of creativity in engaging students in powerful learning environments. Interviews with
candidates support this finding. For example, one candidate described using vanilla wafers to
help students understand the phases of the moon.
Interviews with faculty and data from exit and follow-up surveys support the finding that
candidates have sufficient pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills for teachers.
Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation:
Data for advanced teacher preparation programs indicate candidates have acceptable or target
levels of pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills. The APR report from the ICL MS
LS program states that all candidates have met or exceeded acceptable levels of performance on
assessments measuring pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills for teachers.
Interviews with candidates and faculty, along with review of candidate work samples and more
sampling of COEAS data, indicate candidates have sufficient pedagogical content knowledge for
teachers.
1d. Student Learning for Teachers – Initial
Teacher Preparation
X
1d. Student Learning for Teachers – Advanced
Teacher Preparation
X
Summary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:
Evidence indicates that candidates in initial programs have sufficient preparation for using
assessment of student learning to set instructional targets and modify instructional strategies.
One example is the lesson plan assessment, which is similar across programs. Data sampling
from COEAS indicates that candidates score at or above the acceptable level for improving
student learning as they work with students.
Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation:
Evidence indicates that candidates in advanced teacher programs are able to improve student
learning. Primary data come from the masters projects completed in each program. Data
sampling from COEAS indicates that in the IDT MS program, for example, all candidates score
at acceptable or target performance levels on the student learning elements of key assessments
for both fall 2006 and spring 2007. ECED MS candidates scored at the acceptable performance
level for using study results to improve the practice of others on a key assessment from fall 2007.
In interviews, advanced candidates confidently described projects through which they had impact
on student learning, and interviews with faculty support this observation. Exit and follow-up
surveys with graduates, program completers, and employers support these data and indicate
advanced candidates are well prepared to improve student learning environments.
1e. Professional Knowledge for Other School
Professionals
X
11
Summary of Findings:
The unit has four advanced programs for other school personnel, of which one is offered at the
Millington campus as well. The Millington program is an extension of the main campus, and
data are included with the main campus. Candidates in the school counseling and school
administration programs must meet state licensing requirements. The 2006-2007 APR report
from the school administration program notes that all candidates met acceptable levels of
performance on three key assessments measuring professional knowledge, and further that on the
portfolio project, 75 percent of candidates met the “optimal” or target level.
While reading and library media programs lead to licensure, they operate primarily as degree
programs and are reviewed with the advanced programs for teachers.
Two programs, school counseling and speech language pathology, have been reviewed and
approved by their respective national accrediting bodies and are not reviewed here.
Some unit candidates also participate in an advanced online program operated by the Tennessee
Board of Regents outside COE/UM governance and not reviewed on this visit.
1f. Student Learning for Other School
Professionals
X
Summary of Findings:
Program reports in school leadership and school psychology indicate that candidates have an
impact on student learning. Both programs provide multiple opportunities that prepare candidates
for the respective professions. The internship for the educational leadership program provides
candidates with an array of substantial leadership activities expected of future administrators in
the classroom and in school settings. This internship is based on the standards of the National
Council of Professors of Educational Administration. The faculty team facilitates multiple
learning opportunities based on a comprehensive, researched knowledge and skill base
developed by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration. The field-based
component involves candidates in activities that supplement classroom acquisition of knowledge
and skills.
The school psychology program provides candidates with opportunities to gain knowledge in the
day-to-day delivery of school psychological services through effective understanding of legal
and ethical issues. Understandings of individual differences and various interventions provide
candidates with an in-depth knowledge of school psychological services. Evidence further
indicated that the school psychology program was recognized with conditions on the SPA report
submitted to the NASP. On key program assessments, all candidates scored at the target level.
1g. Professional Dispositions x
Summary of Findings:
Data from key assessments and from clinical practice faculty indicate that candidates have
appropriate professional dispositions for educators. The conceptual framework is not only clear
and well developed but echoes persuasively in interviews with candidates and faculty. It is clear
in key assessments and in candidate work samples that dispositions are assessed formally and
informally throughout all programs. Candidates seek leadership opportunities in organizations
12
and speak of the many connections the faculty encourages them to make with organizations and
programs in the community. Dispositions are clearly assessed in clinical practice and in
advanced program research project rubrics.
Summary of Strengths: Unit candidates are strongly prepared in professional dispositions due
in part to the clear, well developed conceptual framework supporting these dispositions. Faculty
provide and encourage service opportunities for candidates to practice these dispositions.
Candidates are well prepared in content pedagogy and in reflective practice. Candidates moving
into clinical practice sites and new employment in schools in this region are respected and
welcomed by school-based faculty.
Areas for Improvement and Rationales:
AFIs corrected from last visit
None
AFIs continued from last visit
None
New AFIs
None
Recommendation: Standard 1 is met.
Corrections to the Institutional Report The document 2003-2006 Pass Rates on Praxis II Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation
Programs referenced on page 1in the IR and posted in the electronic exhibit is in error. On the
second page under the 2005-2006 data sets the Elementary Education data read LTR, LTR, and 88.
The correct data from Title II reports is 186, 98, and 99.
13
Standard 2
Information reported in the institutional report for Standard 2 was validated in the exhibits and
interviews. (If not, provide an explanation and indicate the pages of the IR that are incorrect.)
Yes □ No
Element Unacceptable Acceptable Target
2a. Assessment System – Initial Teacher
Preparation
X
2a. Assessment System – Advanced Preparation X
Summary of Findings:
The development and implementation of the unit assessment system, referred to as COEAS, was
based on a model proposed by the College of Education (COE) Director of Assessment with
significant participation from internal and external constituents. Based on this model, the COE
database manager created integrated COEAS databases. Members of the professional education
unit and community stakeholders are regularly involved in revising and improving the unit
assessment system based upon evaluating the efficacy and robustness of the system and the data
generated.
The conceptual framework components of diversity, effective practice, and leadership are clearly
reflected in the unit assessment system. Institutional, state, and professional association standards
and competencies inform the academic curriculum (e.g., coursework, field experience, and
clinical practice) and the assessment of candidate performance in initial and advanced programs.
Candidate performance is reviewed and evaluated through multiple assessments at established
transition points: at admission to the program, during candidacy, at program completion, and as
follow-up. Databases are maintained (1) to collect, analyze, summarize, and report data at each
of the transition points; (2) to examine the relationship of assessments and candidate
performance; and (3) for improving unit operations. The assessment system provides for access
to data in varied formats, including by specific courses, by standards, by program matrices
showing standards and assessments, and by individual candidates.
The unit ensures that assessments are fair, accurate, consistent, and unbiased through
communicating procedures with candidates, systematic review of the timing and nature of
assessments, and independent and collaborative assessments of candidate performance.
Assessment procedures and data are discussed regularly by unit faculty (at the program and
department levels), with Community Advisory Councils, with the Teacher Education Advisory
Council (TEAC), with the Dean’s Leadership Team, and annually at the Assessment Retreat.
This review process is used to improve the assessment system, academic program curriculum
and related candidate experiences, and unit operations.
This design of the unit assessment system, including the systematic review of the assessment
system, enables the unit to revise and improve procedures for assessing candidate knowledge,
skills, and dispositions as predictors of candidate success. Faculty report that the COEAS is very
responsive and serves as a catalyst for rich programmatic discussions about candidate
performance.
14
The quality and quantity of multiple assessments at multiple points greatly enhance the
assessment system at the initial level.
2b. Data Collection, Analysis, & Evaluation–
Initial Teacher Preparation
X
2b. Data Collection, Analysis, & Evaluation–
Initial Teacher Preparation – Advanced
Preparation
X
Summary of Findings:
The unit has a comprehensive system of collecting, analyzing, summarizing, evaluating, and
publicly reporting data on candidate performance and unit operations. Initial and advanced
candidate performance data are collected at four transition points. At Program Admission
(Assessment Point 1), assessments are at the unit level and include information such as
demographic data, GPAs, admission test scores (e.g., ACT/SAT, PPST, Praxis I, Praxis II,
GRE), interviews, and letters of recommendation. Data are collected continuously and entered by
university staff into the Banner system and by the COE database manager into the COE database.
The COE database manager and the director of assessment develop summary data reports that
are shared with program faculty, department chairs, advisory committees, and the Teacher
Education Advisory Committee.
During candidacy (assessment point 2) and at program completion (assessment point 3), some
assessments are at the unit level while others are at the program level. Data collected include
Praxis exam scores that are received throughout the year and entered into COEAS by the
database manager. Faculty evaluations of candidate proficiency on four to six program-specific
COEAS key assessments are collected at the end of each semester and entered into COEAS by
program faculty. Ratings of student teachers and interns by supervisors and cooperating
practitioner colleagues are collected twice during each semester and at the end of the placement.
These evaluations are scored by the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) and then
entered into the COEAS database. Program faculty can view and print reports for Praxis
examinations, COEAS key assessments, and student teaching evaluations. Teacher Preparation
Program Reflections Exit Surveys are collected at the end of each semester by the Office of
School-Based Clinical Practice, analyzed by CREP, and summary reports distributed to the unit.
At follow-up, or professional practice (assessment point 4), all assessments are at the unit level
and include surveys of alumni and employers. Unit surveys of program completers and unit
surveys of employers are conducted annually by the CREP with reports provided to the unit. Unit
surveys of program completers and unit surveys of employers are conducted every three years by
the vice provost for assessment, institutional research, and reporting, with summary reports
provided to units.
The director of assessment summarizes data on graduate candidate competence used by program
faculties and advisory committees for program review. Annual program reports are generated
and used by program faculty, program coordinators, department chairs, deans, and the TEAC for
making recommendations for program improvement. Data are disaggregated for alternative route
and off-campus programs and are consistent with data generated from other programs.
15
A system is in place to address candidate complaints and appeals and is described in the
undergraduate and graduate bulletins and in unit-level documents. The process begins at the
program or department level and if not resolved at that level, complaints such as those involving
admission decisions can be referred to the TEAC. Records of formal complaints and resolutions
are kept at the department and unit levels.
Evaluation measures are in place for the assessment of unit operations. Faculty annual
performance evaluations are conducted by department chairs and deans. Student Evaluations of
Teaching Effectiveness (SETE) are conducted for each section of each course in each semester.
These are reviewed by faculty, department chairs, and deans. The assistant dean for faculty
development maintains records of faculty professional development activities and the unit
business office maintains records of grant and contract activity, which is reported annually to
departments, the dean, and the provost.
The COEAS is designed for utility and flexibility in the assessment of initial and advanced
candidate performance and unit operations through the use of contemporary information
technologies. The system accommodates change and revision, programmatically and
systemically, based upon planned and purposeful feedback from multiple constituents.
The quality and quantity of multiple assessments at multiple points greatly enhance the
assessment system at the initial level.
2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement – Initial
Teacher Preparation
X
2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement –
Advanced Preparation
X
Summary of Findings:
The unit assessment system provides data for use in enhancing candidate performance through
improving courses and related educational experiences, academic programs, and unit operations.
The unit systematically reviews the nature and content of assessments and the relationship to
candidate performance and faculty performance. The institutional report describes some of the
changes that have occurred as a result of data collection, analysis, summary, review, and
reporting. Faculty also reported that the COEAS has been useful in redesigning the scope and
sequence of coursework. Although SPA reviews are not required by the unit, faculty indicated
that the reports have provided useful information for program improvement.
Candidate-level assessments are collected, analyzed, and used by candidates and course
instructors for the purpose of improving candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
Aggregated data from candidate performance assessments are collected by faculty and analyzed
and used by faculty, department chairs, advisory councils, and the dean’s office for improving
assessment processes, curriculum, and candidate performance. Unit level assessments are
collected by the COE dean’s office, Office of Institutional Research, and the COEAS. Data are
analyzed and used by the Dean’s Leadership Team and Advisory Councils for improving unit
policies, programs, structures, and operations.
16
Candidates, faculty, and other constituents are systematically involved in the collection, analysis,
and review of assessment data. In addition to the aforementioned uses of data, the unit provides
professional development opportunities for faculty and school-based colleagues. Annual program
and unit reports are generated and shared regularly with stakeholders.
Summary of Strengths:
The unit has developed and implemented an assessment system that has the capacity for
integrating multiple sources and types of data. Individual faculty members can enter information
into a user-friendly database and generate several types of reports. The system is designed such
that programmatic decisions about the types of assessments employed and their relationship to
standards and competencies can be implemented fairly rapidly. The coordination and
maintenance of the system by a full-time database manager and director of assessment are an
asset.
Areas for Improvement and Rationales:
AFIs corrected from last visit-None
AFIs continued from last visit-None
New AFIs-None
Recommendation: Standard 2 is met.
Corrections to the Institutional Report-None
17
Standard 3
Information reported in the institutional report for Standard 3 was validated in the exhibits and
interviews. (If not, provide an explanation and indicate the pages of the IR that are incorrect.)
Yes □ No
Element Unacceptable Acceptable Target
3a. Collaboration between Unit & School Partners
– Initial Teacher Preparation
X
3a. Collaboration between Unit & School Partners
– Advanced Preparation
X
Summary of Findings:
The University of Memphis College of Education has strong partnerships with over 200 schools
in at least five surrounding school systems. Through focus groups, retreats, and surveys the unit
has systemic structures to design, deliver, and evaluate field and clinical experiences. Site visits
and interviews indicate that these relationships continue as the unit works to implement the
conceptual framework into all initial and advanced teacher education programs.
The Office of School–Based Clinical Practice coordinated placement for about 177 candidates in
spring 2008 for initial and advanced teacher education programs. The Office of School-Based
Clinical Practice tracks and assigns field experiences to ensure that candidates develop and
demonstrate skills, knowledge, and dispositions that support diverse learning by all students.
The Office of School-Based Clinical Practice uses many tools when placing candidates. The
office reviews the history of support from partner schools as well as candidates’ previous
placements to ensure diverse experiences. The office collects and reviews feedback on
cooperating teachers. The office also consults an approved rotation list from Memphis Area
Teacher Education Collaborative. Interviews with staff in the Office of School-Based Clinical
Practice verify that they collaborate with P-12 administrators to make placements. Principals
explained that the lists from the Office of School-Based Clinical Practice contained information
to guide them to make appropriate placements. Candidates verified they were given appropriate
placements.
In an interview with a teacher from the Campus School, the teacher explained how the unit
collaborated with her to design a new lesson plan for candidates in the PE program so that it
would be more like the plans cooperating teachers used.
The Framework for Education and Professional Growth of Student Teachers (IR, p. 40) has been
reinvented since the last visit. It now mirrors state evaluations for P -12 professionals, again
confirming collaboration between the unit and its partners.
3b. Design, Implementation, & Evaluation of Field
Experiences & Clinical Practices – Initial Teacher
Preparation
X
3b. Design, Implementation, & Evaluation of Field
Experiences & Clinical Practices – Advanced
X
18
Preparation
Summary of Findings:
Evidence (GPAs, passing PRAXIS scores) and interviews with faculty and candidates verify that
specific entry criteria must be met prior to the start of clinical practice for initial and advanced
candidates. Interviews with cooperating teachers and candidates, and reviews of samples of the
Framework for Education and Professional Growth of Student Teachers, are evidence that all
candidates are routinely evaluated in clinical practice. Interviews with P-12 professionals
confirm that candidates attend meetings and are expected to act as part of school staff in their
placements.
Site visits to the Campus School (IR, p. 37) and Overton High School confirm that partner
schools with Smartboards or weekly computer classes allow candidates in initial and advanced
programs to use technology to instruct. Candidates demonstrate an ability to integrate
technology into instruction. Review of iWebfolios and interviews with candidates and P-12
professionals also verify candidates’ use of technology. Interviews with P-12 professionals
revealed that candidates felt comfortable and were proficient using technology to support their
teaching practice.
The state mandates criteria for student teacher placement in initial and advanced programs.
Principals and staff from the Office of School-Based Clinical Practice state they will also review
state testing data, mentor qualities, and teacher willingness in placing student teachers. Candidate
interviews, a review of The Clinical Student Teaching Handbook (IR, p. 40), and conversations
with P-12 professionals confirm that placements are with accomplished professionals well
prepared for their roles.
Clinical faculty members complete multiple assessments of candidates in initial and advanced
programs. A review of these included samples of journal entries and a completed evaluation
instrument (the Framework for Education and Professional Growth of Student Teachers and a
checklist of dispositions). Interviews with clinical staff and candidates verify that post-
observation conferencing was also used to provide feedback as part of assessment. All
candidates stated that they felt well supported by clinical staff. According to candidate
interviews, clinical staff members are just an email or phone call away. One candidate from the
Three R’s program (IR, pp. 36, 39) verified that he felt completely supported as well, even
though this program has just been piloted.
Reflection is embedded throughout all the initial and advanced programs. A review of candidate
work samples for unit plans and other assignments, and a review of syllabi, confirm this. Also
all candidates create Statements of Philosophy as they enter the program; candidates are required
to reexamine these as they progress through the program, and the statements are revised at
completion of the program.
3c. Candidates’ Development & Demonstration of
Knowledge, Skills, & Professional Dispositions to
Help All Students Learn – Initial Teacher
Preparation
X
3c. Candidates’ Development & Demonstration of X
19
Knowledge, Skills, & Professional Dispositions to
Help All Students Learn – Advanced Preparation
Summary of Findings:
Interviews with the unit staff verify that candidates in initial and advanced programs demonstrate
through GPAs, PRAXIS test scores, and completed applications their mastery of content
knowledge and pedagogy to participate in clinical experiences. Candidates in masters programs
at the initial level complete a capstone project in which they design an action research project
under the guidance of unit faculty and implement it during their clinical experience. Candidate
work samples of this action research project and information in various SPA reports verify that
candidates are assessing their impact on student learning. SPA reports also indicate candidates
meet professional, state, and institutional standards that align with the COE’s conceptual
framework.
Throughout the clinical experience, it is well documented through portfolio pieces and the
Framework for Education and Professional Growth of Student Teachers that clinical faculty
evaluate candidates’ performances in both initial and advanced programs. Candidates explained
during interviews that peer feedback is shared during seminars. Candidates themselves analyze
lessons they teach and record these reflections in journals and assignments to improve student
learning. In an interview, a candidate from the Three R’s program shared his personal
experience with continuous reflection throughout each of his days. Written reflections prove a
variety of assessments allow candidates to use data to inform their instruction.
Interviews with P-12 professionals, site visits, and differentiated lesson plans confirm that all
candidates are developing and demonstrating knowledge, skills, and dispositions to help all
students learn. The Office of School-Based Clinical Practice uses records to ensure that all
candidates participate in a variety of clinical experiences to work with students with
exceptionalities and students from diverse socioeconomic groups as well as various ethnic/racial
and linguistic groups that reflect the area’s population. Interviews with candidates and P-12
professionals provide evidence of the unit’s success in training candidates to help all students
learn.
Summary of Strengths: At the initial level the Three R’s pilot program is unique and notable in
its format of extensive clinical work and endless support of candidates in three middle schools.
The Three R’s program is funded through a grant and will not continue after this year’s cohort.
The COE intends to use the characteristics of this program (once a comprehensive analysis has
been completed) and apply components found to be most beneficial to the unit’s programs.
There is also an onsite Campus School that supports all components of the integrative studies
candidates at the initial level. The P-12 professional staff there collaborate extensively with the
COE to develop and implement well designed activities and instruction for candidates and
students. All resources are used to support candidate learning, from the Campus School’s expert
staff to the diverse community of students who learn there. Working closely with the COE
faculty, the Campus School provides clinical placements to match candidates’ needs. All field
experiences at Campus School incorporate the unit’s conceptual framework and expected
knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions, as these are embedded in the school. The
20
partnership with Campus School is crafted and implemented so candidates can experience
constant interaction with families of students, P-12 professional staff, unit supervisors, and other
candidates.
Areas for Improvement and Rationales:
AFIs corrected from last visit – None.
AFIs continued from last visit – None.
New AFIs – None.
Recommendation: Standard 3 is met.
Corrections to the Institutional Report None
21
Standard 4
Information reported in the institutional report for Standard 4 was validated in the exhibits and
interviews. (If not, provide an explanation and indicate the pages of the IR that are incorrect.)
X Yes □ No
Element Unacceptable Acceptable Target
4a. Design, Implementation, & Evaluation of
Curriculum & Experiences – Initial Teacher
Preparation
x
4a. Design, Implementation, & Evaluation of
Curriculum & Experiences – Advanced
Preparation
x
Summary of Findings:
Commitment to diverse communities is one of three philosophical commitments that the COE
has embraced in its conceptual framework. The expected unit outcomes for diversity are that
“candidates understand how students differ in their approaches to learning; and they act on this
understanding to create instructional opportunities that are acceptable to diverse learners (IR, p.
44).” Three of the six pillars of practice that the COE have adopted as effective performance
outcomes for initial and advanced continuing teacher education programs are directly related to
diversity (2, 3, and 5). In the spring of 2007, the COE adopted a set of COE Diversity Standards
which they expect to further inform curriculum and assessments; efforts are currently underway
to implement these standards across all their programs.
As the Alignment Matrix of Unit, State, and Professional Standards reflects, each program has
aligned its coursework and experiences with unit, Tennessee, and SPA standards to enable
candidates to become aware of the importance of diversity in teaching and to learn to adapt
instruction for diverse learners. All initial licensure programs require a special education course
and a course on urban education or on teaching in diverse environments, which are courses
designed to ensure that candidates develop the practical knowledge, skills, and dispositions
related to teaching in diverse environments. At the advanced level, diversity is integrated into
course syllabi, texts, and discussions that analyze local contexts. In terms of field placements,
the Office of School Based Clinical Practices ensures that initial candidates are placed in diverse
settings across their programs, including in the student teaching semester, in which candidates
are placed at two different grade levels and in different types of schools; for other school
professional candidates, individual programs adhere to similar requirements. At the advanced
level, candidates in the continuing education programs tend to be employed in the school
districts of the Memphis geographical area, which inherently provide a diverse professional
context for them.
The COEAS generates systematic evidence related to candidates’ proficiencies related to
diversity. Each program has articulated program design elements to correlate diversity
understanding and proficiencies with assessments. Evidence is also generated from required
Praxis II exams. Results from the Evaluation and Professional Growth of Student Teachers
reflect that over 95 percent of cooperating teachers and university supervisors rated candidates’
performance as acceptable or proficient in items related to diversity. The Teacher Education
22
Program Candidate Follow-Up Survey Results (2006-2007) present the candidates' perspective
on how well prepared they are to work with diverse learners, through their responses to the same
items related to diversity; over 74 percent responded that they are very satisfied or satisfied. The
results from the Teacher Preparation Program Reflections Exit Survey, fall 2003-spring 2007,
show that the candidates' mean scores in their rating (on a five-point scale from 5 = very strong
to 1 = very weak) of their preparation in items related to diversity fluctuated between 3.56 and
4.15. Overall, interviews with graduates and candidates at the initial and advanced levels, with
cooperating teachers, professors, and university supervisors support these positive results. The
Employer Survey Results (2006-2007) reflect a lower rating of the items related to diversity in
the questionnaire; however, the number of respondents was limited (23). All initial candidates
are required to complete the appropriate Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching Pedagogy
Examination. The examinations include a subsection related to students as learners,
development, diverse learners, motivation, and environment. The pass rates of candidates who
took the examination in 2007 ranged between 88 and 93 percent.
Throughout the programs, including clinical practices, candidates are required to reflect on the
topic of diversity. Reflection on the topic of diversity is expected to be promoted by feedback
from peers, faculty, and cooperating teachers through seminar discussions and reflective
journals. Interviews with graduates and candidates at the initial and advanced levels and with
cooperating teachers, professors, and supervisors consistently supported that reflection has a
direct impact on refining the professional practice of the candidates.
4b.Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty –
Initial Teacher Preparation
X
4b.Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty –
Advanced Preparation
X
Summary of Findings:
Initial and advanced candidates in the COE have the opportunity to interact primarily with
faculty from two ethnic groups: White, non-Hispanics and Black, non-Hispanics. According to
the Faculty Demographics table, 81.8 percent of the education faculty at the initial level is White,
non-Hispanic and 13.5 percent is Black, non-Hispanic; at the advanced level, 74.7 percent is
White, non-Hispanic and 19.6 percent is Black, non-Hispanic. The proportion of Black, non
Hispanic campus-wide is 10 percent, thus it is higher in the COE. School-based faculty is 65.02
percent White, non-Hispanic and 16.5 percent Black, non-Hispanic. In terms of gender diversity,
candidates at the COE have the opportunity to interact with both males and females. The same
table shows that 70.6 percent of the education faculty at the initial level is female and 29.4
percent is male; at the advanced level, 60 percent is female and 40 percent is male. The
proportion of females campus-wide is 42.9 percent, thus it is higher at the COE. School-based
faculty is predominantly female. Efforts to increase minority faculty have led to an increase in
the proportion of minority faculty in the COE. From 2001-2002 to 2006-2007, the proportion
increased from 15 percent to 23 percent. Of the tenured or tenure-track positions in the COE, 25
percent are from minority groups.
The COE has several initiatives designed to develop faculty for their roles in preparing
candidates to work with diverse groups. These initiatives are offered within the departments and
through the office of the assistant dean for faculty and staff development. Among the initiatives
23
offered through this office are: the Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence
(CREDE) training in Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, Facing History and Ourselves, and the
Annual Mentoring Symposium. Of the 32 professional development activities reported by the
Office of Faculty Development for the 2006-2007 academic year, eight included topics related to
diversity. Another significant initiative in strengthening faculty for their role in preparing
candidates to work with diverse groups is the appointment in 2006 of Dr. Beverly Cross to the
Moss Chair of Excellence in Urban Education. This endowed position also has the responsibility
of engaging the COE with the metropolitan and urban communities that they serve. In 2007, Dr.
Cross launched the Urban Education Symposium. Moreover, she has been instrumental in the
establishment of the Center for Urban Interdisciplinary Research and Engagement for Equity
(CUIREE). The mission of the Center is to “create interdisciplinary knowledge through research
and collaborative engagement which strengthens our urban and metropolitan communities"; the
Center has over forty affiliates, including faculty and staff from the COE and other colleges at
the institution, and members of the community.
4c. Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates
– Initial Teacher Preparation
x
4c. Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates
– Advanced Preparation
x
Summary of Findings:
At the initial level, candidates at COE are predominantly White, non-Hispanic (71%), followed
by Blacks, non-Hispanics (26%). At the advanced level, candidates are predominantly Black,
non-Hispanic (61%), followed by Whites, non-Hispanics (37%). At the initial level, the
proportion of Blacks, non Hispanics is lower than campus-wide, which is 35.6 percent; however,
at the advanced level, it is higher (61% to 35.6%). The geographical area served by the
institution is 41 percent Black, non-Hispanic and 52.2 percent White, non-Hispanic. In terms of
gender diversity, the proportion of females to males at COE is higher at both the initial (84% to
16%) and the advanced (89% to 11%) levels. It is also higher than the proportion of females
campus-wide (61.9%) than the proportion of females in geographical area served by the
institution (52%).
As attested in interviews, candidates are encouraged to work collaboratively across diverse
groups and have opportunities to interact with diverse peers through participation in student
organizations at the university level and professional student organizations at the college level.
The COE has been recognized nationally as among the top 100 producers of African American
undergraduate and master’s degree program completers for several consecutive years by the
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. One area that has nevertheless continued to be a
concern is African American male candidates. To address this concern, the COE is
implementing the Three R’s Project through a Teacher Quality Enhancement grant. The project
is described as a collaborative process with the Memphis City Schools to develop a plan to
reinvent teacher preparation programs at the COE, emphasizing recruitment of African-
American males to meet the demographic needs of the district. The project is field testing the
model with two cohorts of candidates for dual licensure in middle school math or science and
special education. Interviews with graduates and candidates at the initial and advanced levels,
and with cooperating teachers, professors, and supervisors, support the potential that the model
24
has in strengthening COE teacher preparation programs. Another effort in adequately serving
diverse candidates is the hiring of a faculty member with expertise in English language learners.
At the college level, an instructor serves a part-time recruiter and works closely with schools to
recruit diverse students into COE programs.
4d. Experiences Working with Diverse Students in
P-12 Schools – Initial Teacher Preparation
x
4d. Experiences Working with Diverse Students in
P-12 Schools – Advanced Preparation
x
Summary of Findings:
A review of the demographic data from P-12 schools sites indicates that candidates at both levels
are provided opportunities to work with P-12 students from as many diverse backgrounds as are
available within the state. The coordinated offices of the director of teacher education and
school-based clinical practice ensure diverse field experiences for candidates. For example, they
ensure that licensure candidates complete at least one placement in a diverse setting through
computerized records maintained on each candidate. The table Demographics of Clinical Sites
for Initial and Advanced Programs reflects that the districts in which candidates are placed are
racially/ethnically and socioeconomically diverse. At the advanced level, as stated in the
summary of findings in element 4a, candidates tend to be employed in the school districts of the
Memphis geographical area, which inherently provide a diverse professional context for them.
Knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to diversity are integrated into the various
components of the candidates' academic experiences, including field and clinical experiences,
and are assessed accordingly. As stated in element 4a, all initial licensure programs require a
special education course and a course on urban education or on teaching in diverse
environments, which are courses designed to ensure that candidates develop the practical
knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to teaching in diverse environments. At the advanced
level, diversity is integrated into course syllabi, texts, and discussions that analyze local contexts.
As detailed in the summary of findings in element 4a, various evaluation summaries reflect
positive assessments of candidates' knowledge, skills, and dispositions in items related to
diversity. Moreover, 99 percent of cooperating teachers and of university supervisors rate
candidates at the acceptable or proficient level in the item “communicates student achievement
and progress to students, their parents, and appropriate others"; 98 percent of cooperating
teachers and nearly 100 percent of university supervisors rate candidates at the acceptable or
proficient level in the item “create a classroom culture that develops student intellectual capacity
in the content area"; and finally, nearly 100 percent of cooperating teachers and of university
supervisors rate candidates at the acceptable or proficient level in the item “communicates
clearly and correctly with students, parents, and other stakeholders.”
Summary of Strengths:
The commitment to diverse community that the COE has embraced as one of the philosophical
commitments is translated into academic and administrative practices that promote that
candidates at the initial and advanced level acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and
professional dispositions to help all students learn. Assessments that the unit has implemented
indicate that candidates demonstrate and apply proficiencies related to diversity. Moreover, the
25
COE is in the process of strengthening its commitment through several recent initiatives, such as:
the adoption of the set of COE Diversity Standards across all programs and the establishment of
the Center for Urban Interdisciplinary Research and Engagement for Equity.
Areas for Improvement and Rationales:
AFIs corrected from last visit: None
AFIs continued from last visit: None
New AFIs: None
Recommendation: Standard 4 is met.
26
Standard 5
Information reported in the institutional report for Standard 5 was validated in the exhibits and
interviews. X Yes □ No
Element Unacceptable Acceptable Target
5a. Qualified Faculty – Initial Teacher Preparation X
5a. Qualified Faculty – Advanced Preparation X
Summary of Findings:
Tables confirm that there are 85 tenure-track faculty, 28 non-tenure track faculty, 113 adjunct
faculty, and nine graduate teaching assistants. Of the tenured and tenure-track faculty, 96 percent
hold doctorates. Three who do not have a doctorate have extensive expertise in their disciplines.
Of the adjunct faculty, 98 percent have master’s degrees or above. The adjunct faculty have
impressive credentials, and 53 percent hold doctorates. Based on a review of vitae, it is apparent
that all faculty members have expertise in their assigned areas and most have documented
experiences in professional and clinical settings. Faculty in supervisory roles either hold current
licenses in the fields they supervise or have been licensed in the area previously.
Faculty members, including part-time and adjunct, show relevant and contemporary experience
in the field to which they are assigned, as well as knowledge of the content in their areas. These
faculty participate in orientations, department meetings, and training sessions to ensure they are
aware of unit emphases and program standards. Based on interviews, it is evident that the college
has a strong cadre of adjunct faculty members who are dedicated to the mission of the college
and university.
5b. Modeling Best Professional Practices in
Teaching – Initial Teacher Preparation
X
5b. Modeling Best Professional Practices in
Teaching – Advanced Preparation
X
Summary of Findings:
Candidate evaluation of teaching and course satisfaction is very high, according to summaries of
several semesters of end-of-course evaluation as well as glowing reports from interviews with
candidates and alumni. Alumni described their preparation as rigorous; they felt ready for the
challenges of schools and communities. Faculty have aligned course syllabi with the conceptual
framework and state standards. Assignments and assessments used by faculty engage the
candidates in the development of reflection, critical thinking, problem-solving, and professional
dispositions. A summary chart aggregated statements from faculty annual reports describing each
faculty member’s best practices in teaching. It was an impressive collection of best practices in
teaching and demonstrated widespread use of creative instructional practices.
Syllabi show the integration of diversity and technology throughout the programs of professional
study. It is a goal of faculty to prepare individuals who believe everyone is worthy of the
opportunity to learn and to act on the belief that diversity is to be valued. Technology is
incorporated into courses in a variety of ways. Faculty efforts to address diversity and
technology in their courses are summarized in documents available online.
27
Faculty reflect on their teaching practices at least annually through a self-evaluation process.
Interviews with many principals and supervisors indicated that they were pleased with the
instructional expertise and support the faculty offered to candidates and teachers in their schools.
5c. Modeling Best Professional Practices in
Scholarship – Initial Teacher Preparation
X
5c. Modeling Best Professional Practices in
Scholarship – Advanced Preparation
X
Summary of Findings:
According to interviews, the college has increased its expectation of faculty members regarding
scholarship since the last NCATE visit. Faculty searches target new hires who have the potential
to contribute to the professional literature and to seek external funding. Ongoing feedback to
faculty from department chairs and more significantly the three-year review ensure that faculty
members have clear guidance about the research expectations of the college. There are several
summary documents that demonstrate the high level of activity of faculty in scholarship. A
review of faculty annual reports shows that 98 percent of tenure-track and tenured faculty were
engaged in scholarly activities. In one typical year, faculty in the unit had 85 publications, 172
presentations, 138 works in progress and 50 awarded grants.
There is extensive activity related to external funding. The number of grants, the broad range of
topics addressed, and the amount of funding is extraordinary. Last year, there were $17 million
and this year $15 million in external funds. The vice president for finance expressed pride in the
College of Education and cited the unit as a major contributor to the university’s goal for
external funding. In addition, the college has four prestigious named chairs of excellence.
5d. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service
– Initial Teacher Preparation
X
5d. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service
– Advanced Preparation
X
Summary of Findings:
All faculty in the college of education are expected to provide meaningful service at the local,
state, regional, national, and international levels as appropriate to their duties and rank. It is
similarly expected that faculty be willing to engage in various program, school, college, and
university service roles. Faculty from all colleges with responsibility for preparing educators
serve on various university committees and work together collaboratively on curricular changes,
leadership, sharing ideas regarding the college, and proposal writing and grant getting.
Interviews with deans, department chairs, and program coordinators revealed a high level of
support for collaborative efforts. Faculty maintain contact with public schools in their multiple
roles, assuring contemporary professional experience.
Faculty are engaged in a variety of ongoing collaborative projects and experiences within school
settings. There are centers doing research in schools, advisory committees, professional
development workshops, collaborative grants, and program evaluation. Minutes from area
committees and the poster session documented a wide range of creative projects that partner
faculty and candidates with local school initiatives. College administrators and faculty provide
28
leadership in these local and regional collaboratives in education.
Faculty are engaged in a wide range of professional service activities that include serving as
editors and reviewers for professional journals, presidents and board members of national
associations, and presidents and board members of state associations, as well as serving on a full
range of department, college and university committees. As part of the process of improving
learning, faculty are engaged in partnerships with schools and agencies across the state which go
beyond traditional workshops, including a high level of collaboration with community colleges
from the region.
Based on a review of faculty annual reports, the majority of faculty are engaged in some form of
service.
5e. Unit Evaluation of Professional Education
Faculty Performance – Initial Teacher Preparation
X
5e. Unit Evaluation of Professional Education
Faculty Performance – Advanced Preparation
X
Summary of Findings:
All faculty in the unit, tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenured, are evaluated by the department
and unit annually and by the candidates in each course that they teach. As specified in the
University of Memphis Faculty Handbook, the university administration carries out specific
evaluation procedures developed in consultation with the faculty to provide some tangible basis
for making judgments on teaching, scholarship, and service. Both tenured and untenured faculty
submit a self-study annual review that highlights teaching, scholarship, and service.
During the annual review, each full-time faculty member summarizes accomplishments and
proposes plans for the upcoming year regarding teaching, scholarship, and service. The
department chair assesses performance, assigning a category from exceptional to failure to meet
responsibilities. This annual review is the primary mechanism for providing specific feedback on
performance. For one typical year, 94 percent of those reviewed were rated good to exceptional.
For the six percent that needed improvement, an action plan was written.
Adjunct faculty commented during the interview that they receive a lot of informal feedback
from faculty and program chairs as well as feedback on each course by candidates. Candidate
feedback is used as a key factor for adjunct reappointment. A systematic, formal system of
evaluation for adjunct faculty is not evident.
5f. Unit Facilitation of Professional Development –
Initial Teacher Preparation
X
5f. Unit Facilitation of Professional Development –
Advanced Preparation
X
Summary of Findings:
The college has made a strong commitment to professional development. An assistant dean
position was developed to lead the initiative in 2004. A committee with representatives from
each department provides a conduit for requests for workshops and programs in alignment with
the college’s stated priorities. The new office began by assessing faculty needs as well as faculty
29
expertise that might be shared. New programs include mentoring and workshops in teaching,
research, and service. There is a minimum of one workshop per month, and many months there
are multiple offerings. According to interviews, university officials have expressed interest in the
structure and offerings of the college professional development office. Workshops address
technology, diversity, and best practices in teaching. There has been an increase in requests for
workshops for grant writing. Workshops are available to P-12 partners as well. Attendance
records show that the unit faculty are regular participants, with more than 1,000 workshop
participants during the 2006-2007 school year.
New faculty members are assigned mentors. Each year, the new faculty mentoring program
increases in breadth and effectiveness. There is travel money available for faculty to participate
in conferences and professional activities.
Adjunct faculty reported that they were invited to all workshops and professional development.
Summary of Strengths:
The unit has a strength in the vast amount of external funding secured by many faculty members
that has resulted in a wide range of creative initiatives with schools and nationally recognized
research centers.
Areas for Improvement and Rationales:
AFIs corrected from last visit – None
AFIs continued from last visit – None
New AFIs – None
Recommendation: Standard 5 is met.
Corrections to the Institutional Report none
30
Standard 6
Information reported in the institutional report for Standard 6 was validated in the exhibits and
interviews. (If not, provide an explanation and indicate the pages of the IR that are incorrect.)
X Yes □ No
Element Unacceptable Acceptable Target
6a. Unit Leadership & Authority – Initial Teacher
Preparation
x
6a. Unit Leadership & Authority – Advanced
Preparation
x
Summary of Findings:
The College of Education is the professional education unit on campus. All department chairs,
committees, and advisory councils report to the dean. Advisory councils and committees report
to and propose recommendations through department chairs. The administrative council advises
and reports to the dean. The councils and committees meet on a regular basis, often monthly or
several times throughout each semester.
The administrative council advises the dean on strategic planning initiatives within the unit,
responds to university-wide initiatives, and sets policy for the unit. Additional information,
gathering occurs through various open forum meetings and orientations for faculty and
stakeholders.
The professional community participates in advisory councils, professional development
activities, and unit-wide meetings and retreats. Interviews with full-time faculty and part-time
faculty confirm a high level of satisfaction with communication and information that is solicited
from P-12 participants. Unit stakeholders participate in professional development events,
departmental meetings, and unit-sponsored events, and on advisory councils.
Interviews and documentation confirm the unit has dedicated advising personnel for initial and
advanced programs. These individuals provide one-on-one advising, and monthly advising
sessions and communicate electronically and face to face with candidates. The Jackson Center
also has a dedicated advising staff member. This staff person works closely with the COE
advising staff at the Memphis campus. Additionally, the staff member provides outreach and
recruiting efforts to the community, visiting high schools and local community college classes.
All the unit’s admission and degree requirements and policies are described clearly and
consistently in the university course catalog, departmental brochures, and student handbook.
Publications describing initial and advanced level programs address admission requirements,
deadlines, and the application process. Handbooks and informational publications for key
transition points such as orientation and graduation specifically address these points of a
candidate’s progression through their educational program. Criteria for admission and
requirements to progress through the three key transition points and successful completion of
these three key points are current and consistent in both print and online versions for the initial
and advanced level programs. All publications appear consistent and current. All publications
and key forms are available online. Many of the publications cross-reference key publications
31
and are hyperlinked within the online documents.
The academic catalogues, publications, and grading policies reflect consistency and are available
online. Grading policies are clearly delineated for key transition points such as completion of
internships at both the initial and advanced levels. The academic catalogue mirrors information
found in the individual departmental publications and degree program publications. The COE
unit has a centrally accessed drive where all instructional materials, publications, catalogues, and
policies are located. All changes and updates are monitored and instituted by the governing
councils and committees. Changes and updates are implemented by the COE webmaster. This
individual monitors the webpage for COE. This ensures consistency and accuracy for COE
operational documents.
6b. Unit Budget – Initial Teacher Preparation x
6b. Unit Budget – Advanced Preparation x
Summary of Findings:
The unit’s budget is comparable to other budgets of units on campus. Interviews with faculty and
administration suggest that funding is adequate to support curricular programs and support the
preparation of candidates to meet standards. The unit budget supports teaching, scholarship and
service that extend beyond the unit to the P-12 community.
The unit supports the Office of Faculty and Staff Development that was created in 2002 to focus
on the provision of professional development within the unit and with its stakeholders. The unit
funds the Office of Professional Development. Additional funds are also garnered from the
university’s Office of the Provost to support specific professional development events or
university-wide sponsored professional development. The Office of Professional Development
actively solicits input from participants of professional development activities, COE department
faculty, and P-12 stakeholders in order to determine professional development priorities.
Interviews with academic deans and department chairs confirm that no programs have been
discontinued due to lack of funding. Unit budgets are supplemented by grants. Interviews with
university administration confirm that the COE is considered a leader in obtaining external
funding. The unit does not generate revenue from the distance learning sites. The distance
learning sites are supported by a university-wide Office of Extended Programs. Interviews with
distance learning faculty confirm funding is available for technology and instructional resources
through the COE unit or through the Office of Extended Programs.
6c. Personnel – Initial Teacher Preparation x
6c. Personnel – Advanced Preparation x
Summary of Findings:
Since the last institutional review the unit has developed clinical positions that are teaching-only
positions. Individuals in these clinical positions typically teach a 12- or 15-hour credit load.
Tenure-track faculty have a nine- or 12-credit-hour workload. New faculty have a six-hour credit
load. Interviews with unit administrators indicate this change is in direct result to the university
and unit’s strategic plan to increase the level of research productivity.
Adjustments to the teaching load may be made if the faculty members are involved in grants,
32
research, or special projects within the university. Faculty may receive grant funds or support
monies from the COE in order to pursue research projects or development of online courses.
Interviews with part-time faculty confirm that the COE unit provides opportunities to inform and
gather input from part-time faculty. Annual meetings, consistent collaboration, and
communication between course coordinators and adjunct faculty ensure part-time faculty
contribute to the design, instruction, and enhancement of the courses they teach. Interviews with
part-time faculty indicated they are encouraged to attend COE faculty meetings and professional
development opportunities.
As listed in the institutional report and confirmed in interviews with unit faculty and
administrators, there are adequate support personnel to assist the unit in teaching, scholarship,
and service of the unit. Support personnel assist with advising, technology, research, and
coordinating grants.
6d. Unit Facilities – Initial Teacher Preparation x
6d. Unit Facilities – Advanced Preparation x
Summary of Findings:
The unit is housed in several different buildings on campus. Although interviews with faculty
and deans revealed that unit classes are held in 13 different buildings on campus, most faculty in
the Teacher Education Division and Graduate Education Division are housed in the COE
building. Scheduling and use of unit classrooms is managed centrally. Since the COE unit is
considered a leader in technology use at the university, the university has updated classrooms
and labs in the COE facility. The unit has obtained technological hardware and equipment to
enhance classrooms for instruction. The distance learning classrooms are well equipped to
handle the instructional demands of teaching distance learning classes. Candidates may interact
with the faculty member and classmates in all locations. The university technology infrastructure
that provides communication software and course management software is stable and maintained
with adequate support personnel. The university-wide course management system has recently
undergone a migration to a new supported system. Faculty have received information and
training on this new system. Interviews with faculty indicate the access to and availability and
use of technology in the COE building and at distance locations is adequate to support
instruction. The COE library has been decentralized. Subject-specific instructional resources
such as textbooks and accompanying supplemental materials have been placed in a specific
classroom where the majority of methods courses are held. Candidates and faculty may use
these resources during instruction or may borrow the materials on an honor system. These
instructional materials are not inventoried or catalogued.
6e. Unit Resources including Technology – Initial
Teacher Preparation
x
6e. Unit Resources including Technology –
Advanced Preparation
x
Summary of Findings:
The unit serves as an informational and technological resource to the institution, P-12
community, and other university units. The COE building has multiple labs, and all classrooms
are updated with instructional technology. Instructional materials are available in the unit's
33
classrooms. Many of these materials are provided free to the COE, as the unit is a Tennessee
state textbook depository. Collaboration between the university’s Information Technology
Division and its Advanced Learning Center with the unit’s technology personnel suggest
consistent, timely, and responsive technology support for the instructional unit. The unit has
three support personnel for support technology use in the COE. Interviews confirm that faculty
including adjuncts utilize the unit’s assessment system. The unit employs a director of
assessment and one support person dedicated to managing and implementing the assessment
system. These individuals work collaboratively with faculty to ensure the accessibility and ease
of use for COE faculty. Documentation within the assessment system reveals that assessment
components have been changed or adapted in response to faculty input. Interviews confirm that
electronic resources are available to candidates enrolled in on-campus classes and at distance
sites. Candidates at these off-campus locations have access to resources through cooperative
agreements with the community college libraries that house the distance education programs.
The library is a federal and state government depository, which enables candidates to access a
wealth of current government documents. Candidates have access to assistance from library
personnel 24 hours a day, seven days a week, through the use of electronic communication
services as well as extended library operation hours at key points within the semester.
University funding has affected the annual allocation for new resource materials for the COE as
well as other university units. However, interviews and library documentation indicate the library
is responsive to COE faculty requests for resources. Communication and utilization of library
resources is facilitated by library personnel who have been assigned responsibility for working
with the COE unit. Additionally, representatives from COE provide input to library personnel
and serve as communication and information facilitators for the COE unit in regard to new
library services and resources. Library services for faculty are available at on- and off-campus
locations.
Summary of Strengths:
The unit and its faculty have created a nurturing, collaborative environment that supports the
principles of teaching, research, and service. The unit has established a systematic process for
soliciting and responding to faculty, community, and P-12 stakeholder input. The unit’s policies
and practices support faculty engagement in teaching, research, and scholarship. The unit has
designed and maintained a system of planning, delivering, and evaluating programs that enables
the unit to plan and manage change. The assessment system is a key element in the unit’s
evaluation of programs, identification of program strengths and weaknesses, and program
development.
Areas for Improvement and Rationales:
AFIs corrected from last visit--none
AFIs continued from last visit--none
New AFIs--none
Recommendation: Standard 6 is met.
Corrections to the Institutional Report: none
34
IV. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE
Documents reviewed:
SOURCES OF EVIDENCE CITED IN IR
OVERVIEW
The University of Memphis
1. A Brief History of the University of Memphis
2. UofM Vision and Strategic Plan
3. Comparison of University, College, and Service Area Demographics
The College of Education
1. Academic Rank of Professional Education Faculty Fall 2007
2. Programs and their Review Status
3. http://jackson.memphis.edu/contact.php
4. http://bf.memphis.edu/millington/
5. http://academics.memphis.edu/extended/off-campus01.html
6. Regent’s Online Degree Program Description
7. Three R’s Project Program Description
8. College of Education Goals and Vital Signs
9. Aspiration Statements and Innovation Implementation Teams
10. http://coefutures.memphis.edu/
11. http://crede.berkeley.edu/index.html
12. diversity outcome standards
13. Summit III – Big Ideas
14. Urban Partnerships
15. Research Culture
16. Technology and Resource Center
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1. conceptual framework graphic
2. http://www.tennessee.gov/education/lic/doc/accttchlicstds.pdf
3. http://crede.berkeley.edu/standards/standards.html
4. Alignment Matrix of Unit, State, and Professional Standards
5. full Conceptual Framework document
6. Diversity Performance Standards
7. Dispositions, Policies, and Procedures for Assessment
STANDARD 1
CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS
1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
1. State Mandated Praxis II Exams by Licensure Area
2. 2003-2006 Praxis II Content Exam Pass Rates by Program Area
3. Master’s Project Guidelines
4. Master’s Project Rubric
35
5. Physical Education Teacher Education Advanced MS Annual Program Report
6. Master’s Project Comprehensive Examination Rubric
7. Master’s Project Enrollment and Completion Rates
8. Framework for Evaluation & Professional Growth of Student Teachers
9. Teacher Preparation Program Reflections exit survey
10. Follow-up Surveys of Program Completers
11. Follow-up Surveys of Employers
12. https://coeas-data.memphis.edu/ [Username=ncate & Password=123456789]
13. Initial and Advanced Teacher Education Program SPA Reports
14. Advanced Teacher Education Annual Program Reports
15. Teacher Preparation Program Reflections Exit Survey Results
16. Framework for Evaluation & Professional Growth of Student Teachers Results
17. 2008 Teacher Education Program Candidate Follow-up Survey Instrument
18. Teacher Education Program Candidate Follow-up Survey Results
19. Teacher Education Program Employer Survey Results
1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teachers
1. Early Childhood Education Advanced MS SPA Report
2. Master’s Project Comprehensive Exam and Project Results 2006-2007
3. Instructional Design and Technology Advanced MS Annual Program report
4. Special Education Advanced MS Annual Program Report
1c. Professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills for teachers
1. 2007 Principles of Learning and Teaching Exam Performance Scores
2. 2007 Praxis II Pedagogy Exam Performance Scores
3. annual program reports
1d. Student learning for teacher candidates
1. SPA reports
1e. Professional knowledge and skills for other school professionals
1. Reading Advanced MS SPA Report
2. School Leadership Advanced MS SPA Report
3. Library Media Specialist Advanced MS SPA Report
4. School Psychology Advanced MS SPA Report
5. Praxis II Scores for Other School Professionals
6. Results from School Administration Survey of Program Graduates
7. Evaluation of School Psychology Program Graduates by Employers
1f. Student learning for other school professionals
1g. Professional dispositions
1. http://www.ncate.org/public/programStandards.asp?ch=4
2. Educational Leadership Advanced MS SPA Report
3. School Psychology Advanced MA SPA Report
Additional Documents on unit NCATE website
1. Masters Thesis Option Frequency 2005-2007
2. SPA Reports National Recognition Report Outcome Summary Spring 2008
3. Teacher Preparation Program Reflections Exit Survey Fall 2007 Update
36
4. Title II Institution Report 2000-01
5. Title II Institution Report 2001-02
6. Title II Institution Report 2002-03
7. Title II Institution Report 2003-04
8. Title II Institution Report 2004-05
9. Title II Institution Report 2005-06
10. Title II Institution Report 2006-07 Preliminary Raw Data
11. Unit Summary Content Knowledge Advanced Teacher Programs
12. Unit Summary Content Knowledge Initial Programs
13. Unit Summary Content Knowledge Other School Professionals
14. Unit Summary Knowledge Skills Other School Professionals
15. Unit Summary Professional Pedagogical Knowledge Advanced Programs
16. Unit Summary Professional Pedagogical Knowledge Initial Programs
17. Unit Summary Student Learning Advanced Teacher Education
18. Unit Summary Student Learning Initial Programs
19. Unit Summary Student Learning Other School Professionals
STANDARD 2
ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION
2a. Assessment system
1. 2007 Annual Program Report format
2. COEAS Operations Model
3. COEAS Essential Assessment Domains
4. COEAS Assessment Domains and System Characteristics
5. COEAS Model Transition Points
6. six pillars of effective practice
7. Overview of Key Assessments and Assessment Points
8. Unit Assessment System: Transition Point Assessments
9. Candidate Admission Data
10. Unit and Program Operations and Quality Assessments
2b. Data collection, analysis, and evaluation
1. COEAS Data Collection, Analysis, and Review Plan
2. OCR Scantron forms
3. How to Post COEAS Key Assessment Scores
4. Teacher Preparation Program Reflections exit survey
5. Reports in the form of tables
6. survey of alumni
7. National Survey of Student Engagement
8. https://umdrive.memphis.edu/g-provost/sirs/all_about_sete.html
9. common instrument in electronic format
10. NCATE Part C Annual Reports
11. http://oir.memphis.edu/program_review/index.html
12. http://academics.memphis.edu/bulletin/
13. http://academics.memphis.edu/gradcatalog/index.html
14. Communication Form
37
2c. Use of data for program improvement
1. Tennessee Regents On-line Degree Program
2. flowchart
3. 2008 Annual Program Report format
4. Dean’s Updates
5. COE Annual Report
Additional Documents on unit NCATE website
1. Advanced Program Alignment with Conceptual Framework
2. List Of Key Assessments By Program
3. Teacher Preparation Program Reflections Exit Survey Fall 2007 Update
4. Advanced Program Alignment with Conceptual Framework
5. List Of Key Assessments By Program
6. Teacher Preparation Program Reflections Exit Survey Fall 2007 Update
STANDARD 3
FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
1. Aspiration Team #12 Template
2. U.S. DOE Grant Performance Report, Executive Summary
3. Three R’s Spring 2007 Report
4. Center for Urban School Leadership Program Description
3a. Collaboration between unit and school partners
1. Jackson Area Collaborative Agreement
2. http://www.campusschool.org/
3. http://lipman.memphis.edu/about.htm
4. Teacher Education Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
5. Agendas of Memphis Area Teacher Education Collaborative Meeting
6. University of Memphis Clinical Student Teaching Program Evaluation –
Cooperating Teachers
9. A Position on Action Research for Professional Development Conducted by
Candidates Enrolled in ICL 7992 Master’s Project
10. Three R’s Program Principal Interview Protocol
11. Three R’s Program Clinical Faculty Interview Protocol
3b. Design, implementation, and evaluation of field experiences and clinical
practice
1. Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program
2. Field and Clinical Experience Description Tables
3. Clinical Student Teaching Handbook
4. Framework for Evaluation and Professional Growth of Student Teachers
5. ICL 7992-Master’s Project Syllabus
6. Artifact Portfolio Products
7. School Psychology Program Handbook CTL
38
8. Library Information Specialist State Model for Local Evaluation
9. Syllabus for IDT 3600-Technology in Education
10. Syllabus for IDT 7061-Media and Technology Utilization
11. Cooperating Teacher Data Form
12. Clinical Student Teaching Program Evaluation, Cooperating Teachers
13. University Supervisor Evaluation
14. Cooperating Teacher Informational Session Documentation
15. New Teacher Center Mentor Training Modules
16. Candidate Perceptions of Quality of Student Teaching Experiences
3c. Candidates’ development and demonstration of knowledge, skills, and
dispositions to help all students learn
1. Student Teaching Applicants and Completers
2. School Administration and Supervision Internship Candidates and Completers
3. School Psychology Internship Candidates and Completers
4. Student Teacher Evaluation Summary Form
5. Student Teacher Evaluation Summary Fall 2006
6. Summative Student Teaching Assessment Results
7. School Psychology Handbook
8. CTL Evaluation Excerpt
Additional Documents on unit NCATE website
1. Teacher Preparation Program Reflections Exit Survey Fall 2007 Update
2. Shelby County Schools Student Teaching Agreement
3. Program Community Advisory Councils Membership
STANDARD 4
DIVERSITY
4a. Design, implementation, and evaluation of curriculum and experiences
1. http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/corestrd.pdf
2. conceptual framework
3. COE Diversity Standards
4. ICL 4001
5. ICL 4002
6. SPED 2000
7. SPED 7000
8. SPED 6900
9. ICL 7709
10. LEAD 2010
11. LDPS 7330
12. https://coeas-data.memphis.edu
13. evaluation of student teaching instrument
14. Teacher Education Program Reflections exit survey
15. follow-up surveys of candidates
16. surveys of employers
17. pedagogy Praxis II exams
39
18. Framework for Evaluation and Professional Growth of Student Teachers results
19. Teacher Education Program Reflections exit survey results
20. Results from Follow-up Surveys of Candidates
21. Employer Survey Results
22. Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching pedagogy examinations
4b. Experiences working with diverse faculty
1. Candidate Demographics
2. Faculty Demographics
3. Professional Education Faculty Gender & Race – 2007-08
4. Professional Development Activities for 2006
5. http://coe.memphis.edu/CUSL/
6. Moss Chair of Excellence in Urban Education
4c. Experiences working with diverse candidates
1. http://saweb.memphis.edu/Leadership/RSO.html
4d. Experiences working with diverse students in P-12 schools
1. Demographics of Clinical Sites for Initial and Advanced Programs
3. http://tennessee.gov/education/speced/doc/04-05AnnrptComp.pdf
4. Framework for Evaluation and Professional Growth of Student Teachers
Instrument
Additional Documents on unit NCATE website
1. Teacher Preparation Program Reflections Exit Survey Fall 2007 Update
STANDARD 5
FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS, PERFORMANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT
5a. Qualified faculty
1. Faudree Professorships
2. Faculty Qualifications
3. Academic Qualifications of Professional Education Faculty 2007-2008
4. Professional Education Faculty 2007-2008
6. Faculty Year End Evaluations for 2006
5b. Modeling best professional practices in teaching
1. https://umdrive.memphis.edu/g-icl/syllabi/SPRING%202008/
2. Instruction and the Conceptual Framework
3. Reflection, Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Dispositions
4. Instructional Strategies Used by Faculty
5. Assessment Strategies Used by Faculty
6. Practices Used to Address Diversity
7. Practices Used to Integrate Technology
8. SIRS Online Survey
9. 2006 and 2007 COE Aggregate SIRS Mean Scores
10. COE Assessments
11. University SIRS Summary Form
40
12. Faculty Annual Report Form
5c. Modeling best professional practices in scholarship
1. Modeling Best Practices in Scholarship
2. http://www.memphis.edu/facultyhandbook/2007FHB_Chapter4.htm
5d. Modeling best professional practices in service
1. Teacher Education Advisory Council Meetings
2. Agendas of Memphis Area Teacher Education Collaborative
3. FDAC Minutes Related to Collaboration with P12 Schools
4. Collaborations and Partnerships
5. Memberships in Professional Associations
6. Leadership Institute
7. Modeling Best Practices in Leadership
5e. Unit evaluation of professional education faculty performance
1..http://www.memphis.edu/facultyhandbook/2007FHB_Appendices.htm#Form:%20Ext
ernal%20Evaluator%20List
2. Data Forms for Part-time Faculty
5f. Unit facilitation of professional development
1. Job Description for Assistant Dean
2. Professional Development Activities for 2006-2007
3. 2005
4. 2004
5. 2003
6. 2006-07 Activities CF Themes
7. Mentor Checklist
Additional Documents on unit NCATE website
1. COE Grant Awards 2007
STANDARD 6
UNIT GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES
6a. Unit leadership and authority
1. Organizational chart
2. http://coe.memphis.edu/advising-and-student-services.htm
3. http://coe.memphis.edu/advising.htm
4. http://saweb.memphis.edu/health/
5. http://saweb.memphis.edu/cclt/).
6 http://academics.memphis.edu/gradcatalog/
7. http://coe.memphis.edu/TEP-admissions.htm
6b. Unit Budget
1. Budget enrollment faculty
41
6c. Personnel 1. effort table
2. teaching loads table
3. handbook
4. College of Education Support Personnel
6d. Unit facilities
1. Facilities for the College of Education
6e. Unit resources including technology
1. technology support doc
2. TAF software summary
3. http://trl.memphis.edu/smartclassroom.php
4. http://trl.memphis.edu/computerlabs.php
5. Technology Resources for the College of Education
6. 2002-2007 External funding
7. grants by professional education faculty
Additional Documents on unit NCATE website
1. Part Time Meeting 082307
2. Part Time Meeting 0824
3. Part Time Meeting spring 2008
4. COE Budget by Department
5. TAF Computer Rollout for COE
6. U of M Library Databases in Education
7. U of M Library Education Journals
8. COE Grant Awards for 2007
HARD COPY DOCUMENTS IN EVIDENCE ROOM
General
1. 2001 NCATE Visit Documents
2. 2008 NCATE Institutional Report
3. Departmental Newsletters
4. Third Party Testimony Advertisement
Standard 1
1. American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACBS) Accreditation
Documents
2. American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS) Accreditation
Documents
3. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Accreditation
Documents
4. Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs
(CACREP) Accreditation Documents
5. National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD) Accreditation
42
Documents
6. National Association of Schools of Music (NASM) Accreditation Documents
7. Candidate Work Samples:
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION-BSED Assessment 2 0001 STUDENT TEACHING UNIT PLAN
Assessment 3 UNIT PLAN (INTEGRATED UNIT PLAN –
THEMATIC UNIT PLAN)
Assessment 5 CASE STUDY
Assessment 6 INFANT/TODDLER PORTFOLIO
Assessment 7 DISPOSITION CHECKLIST
Assessment 8 STUDENT TEACHING PORFOLIO
==============================================================
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION-MAT
Assessment 2 0001 STUDENT TEACHING UNIT PLAN
Assessment 3 UNIT PLAN (INTEGRATED UNIT PLAN –
THEMATIC UNIT PLAN)
Assessment 5 CASE STUDY
Assessment 6 INFANT TODDLER PORTFOLIO
Assessment 7 DISPOSITION CHECKLIST
Assessment 8 STUDENT TEACHING PORTFOLIO
==============================================================
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION-MS
Assessment 1 EXAM, ECED
Assessment 2 CASE STUDY
Assessment 3 UNIT, ECED
Assessment 4 CREATING A CENTER, ECED
Assessment 5 RESEARCH PAPER, ECED
Assessment 6 MASTERS PROJECT
Assessment 7 DISPOSITION CHECKLIST
Assessment 8 PRESENTATION ON THEORIST, ECED
============================================================
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BSED
Assessment 2 0001 STUDENT TEACHING UNIT PLAN
Assessment 3 INTASC PORTFOLIO
Assessment 5 MATHEMATICS INTERVIEW
Assessment 6 EXSS 3306 GRADE
Assessment 7 PARENT INTERVIEW
Assessment 8 PETE 3604 GRADE
============================================================
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION-MAT
Assessment 2 0001 STUDENT TEACHING UNIT PLAN
Assessment 3 INTASC PORTFOLIO
Assessment 5 MATHEMATICS INTERVIEW
Assessment 6 ACTION RESEARCH MASTERS PRO
Assessment 7 PARENT INTERVIEW
===============================================================
43
INSTRUCTION & CURRICULUM LEADERSHIP-MS
Assessment 1 USES STUDY RESULTS TO IMPROVE PARCTICE
Assessment 2 FORMULATES VALID ACTION RESEARCH
QUESTION
Assessment 3 ANALYZES EVIDENCE AND DRAWS
CONCLUSION
Assessment 4 USE PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE TO PLAN
ACTION
Assessment 5 FINAL GRADE
Assessment 6 EFFECTIVE WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
SKILLS
Assessment 7 FINAL GRADE
===============================================================
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY-MS
Assessment 1 RESEARCH PAPER
Assessment 2 DEFINITION, TIMELINE, INTERVIEW
Assessment 3 DESIGN DOCUMENT
Assessment 4 SEE ASSESSMENT 7
Assessment 5 INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT
Assessment 6 DESIGN DOCUMENT AND PRODUCT
Assessment 7 DESIGN DOCUMENT AND PRODUCT
============================================================
MIDDLE SCHOOL EDUCATION-BSED
Assessment 2 STANDARDS-BASED LESSON PLAN
Assessment 3 STUDENT TEACHING UNIT PLAN
Assessment 5 METHODS COURSE CLINICAL EVALUATION
OF TEACHING
Assessment 6 SELF ASSESSMENT & FUTURE GROWTH PLAN
Assessment 7 FAMILY & COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
==============================================================
PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER EDUCATION BSED
Assessment 2 END OF PROGRAM PORTFOLIO
Assessment 3 UNIT PLAN
Assessment 5 STUDENT SURVEY OF PERCEIVED
COMPETENCE
Assessment 6 STUDENT TEACHING JOURNAL
Assessment 7 TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM
REFLECTIONS
Assessment 8 ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION CASE
STUDY
=============================================================
READING SPECIALIST -MS
Assessment 2 PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO
Assessment 3 IN-SERVICE TRAINING PLAN
Assessment 4 CASE STUDY ASSESSMENTS-INTERVENTION
Assessment 5 MODEL LITERACY CLASSROOM
44
Assessment 6 MASTERS PROJECT ACTION RESEARCH
===========================================================
SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION – MAT
Assessment 2 SCIENCE CONTENT CLASSROOM
PRESENTATION
Assessment 3 SCIENCE CONTENT UNIT PLAN
Assessment 5 SCIENCE CLASSROOM RESEARCH PROJECT
Assessment 6 INQUIRY LESSON PLAN
Assessment 7 ACTION RESEARCH MASTER’S PROJECT
Assessment 8 STS LESSON PLAN
============================================================
SECONDARY SOCIAL STUDIES EDUCATION-MAT
Assessment 2 STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATION –
CONTENT
Assessment 3 UNIT PLAN
Assessment 5 CLINICAL EXPERIENCE
Assessment 6 SELF ASSESSMENT & FUTURE GROWTH PLAN
Assessment 7 PARENT INTERVIEW
==============================================================
SECONDARY ENGLISH EDUCATION - MAT
Assessment 2 STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATION DOMAIN 1,
B
Assessment 3 UNIT PLAN
Assessment 5 CLINICAL EXPERIENCE
Assessment 6 PARENT INTERVIEW
Assessment 7 SELF ASSESSMENT & FUTURE GROWTH PLAN
==============================================================
SECONDARY FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION - MAT
Assessment 2 STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATION DOMAIN, 1
B
Assessment 3 UNIT PLAN
Assessment 5 CLINICAL EXPERIENCE
Assessment 6 PARENT INTERVIEW
Assessment 7 SELF ASSESSMENT & FUTURE GROWTH PLAN
==============================================================
SECONDARY MATH EDUCATION - MAT
Assessment 2 PROBLEM SOLVING ACTIVITIES
Assessment 3 UNIT PLAN
Assessment 5 CLINICAL FACULTY EVALUATION
ASSESSMENT SECTION
==============================================================
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION & SUPERVISION MS
Assessment 2 DIMENSION PAPER (Dimension Essay and
Problem-based Scenario)
Assessment 3 CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT AND CLINICAL
45
SUPERVISION PROJECT
Assessment 4 SUMMATIVE EVALUATION FORM (Field Studies
Internship)
Assessment 5 SCHOOL-BASED CHANGE INITIATIVE
Assessment 6 CASE STUDY/ANALYSIS (Collaborative Research
Initiative for School Improvement)
Assessment 7 SCHOOL COMMUNITY RELATIONS ANALYSIS
Assessment 8 Portfolio (Program Portfolio)
==============================================================
SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALIST - MS
Assessment 2 PATHFINDER PROJECT
Assessment 3 ICL 7133 BIG 6 PROJECT
Assessment 4 LIBRARIAN INTERSHIP EVALUATION
Assessment 5 BIG SIX PROJECT (SEE A03)
Assessment 6 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Assessment 7 FINAL GRADE
==============================================================
SPECIAL EDUCATION - BSED
Assessment 2 SPECIAL EDUCATION CONTENT EXAM
Assessment 3 DATA BASED INSTRUCTION PROJECT
Assessment 5 CLINICAL PRACTICUM EVLUATION
Assessment 6 BEHAVIOR CHANGE PLAN
Assessment 7 TEST INTERPRETATION AND DATA USE
Assessment 8 IEP/IFSP
=============================================================
SPECIAL EDUCATION -MAT
Assessment 2 SPECIAL EDUCATION CONTENT EXAM
Assessment 3 DATA BASED INSTRUCTION PROJECT
Assessment 5 CLINICAL PRACTICUM EVALUATION
Assessment 6 BEHAVIOR CHANGE PLAN
Assessment 7 TEST INTERPRETATION AND DATA USE
Assessment 8 IEP/IFSP
==============================================================
THREE R’S PROJECT/MIDDLE SCHOOL - MAT Assessment 1 PLANNING, TEACHING and the ANALYSIS of
WORK
Assessment 2 CLASSROOM and BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Assessment 3 ASSESSMENT and PROGRAM PLANNING for an
EXCEPTIONAL LEARNER
Assessment 4 COLLABORATION with FAMILIES and the
COMMUNITY
Assessment 5 INDIVIDUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
Assessment 6 ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT
46
Standard 6
1. College of Education Grants and Contracts
Persons interviewed: NCATE/STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS
INTERVIEW ATTENDEES
(All Interviews by Category)
CatDescription Lname Fname Attended Cat-Total
A&S Dean Kurtz Henry 1
A&S Dean Thompson Will 1 2
Adjunct Faculty Carreras Patti 1
Adjunct Faculty Choate Joyce 1
Adjunct Faculty Franceschini Lou 1
Adjunct Faculty Kennard Linda 1
Adjunct Faculty Mitchell Jim 1
Adjunct Faculty Potts Richard 1
Adjunct Faculty Pullen Mary 1
Adjunct Faculty Ssebikindu Lyne 1
Adjunct Faculty Ware Duncan 1
Adjunct Faculty Wunderlich Marcia 1 10
Admissions Officer Akey Bill 1
Admissions Officer Moore Gloria 1 2
Affirmative Action Officer Banks Michelle 1 1
Aspiration Team Leaders Alberg Marty 1
Aspiration Team Leaders Allen Lee 1
Aspiration Team Leaders Bridges Sara 1
Aspiration Team Leaders Cummings Bonnie 1
Aspiration Team Leaders Rakow Ernie 1
Aspiration Team Leaders Shelton Kay 1
Aspiration Team Leaders Walls Stan 1
Aspiration Team Leaders Weiss Larry 1
Aspiration Team Leaders Wright Paul 1 9
Assessment & NCATE Coordinator Harris Jim 1
Assessment & NCATE Coordinator Johnston John 1 2
47
Assist Dean for P-12 Programs Alberg Marty 1
Assist Dean for P-12 Programs Flynt Sutton 1 2
BSEd/MAT Students Barnes JD 1
BSEd/MAT Students Bunso Melissa 1
BSEd/MAT Students Dunnavant Linda 1
BSEd/MAT Students Kopmeier John 1
BSEd/MAT Students Mott Brian 1
BSEd/MAT Students Webb Teri 1
BSEd/MAT Students Weber Lauren 1 7
Campus School School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
Campbell Robin 1
Campus School School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
Coleman Diane 1
Campus School School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
Griffin Suzanne 1
Campus School School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
Schwartz Shannon 1
Campus School School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
Shadow Ernest 1 5
Campus School-School Visit-Principal Copeland Susan 1 1
Campus School-School Visit-Student Teacher
Frasier Wayne 1
Campus School-School Visit-Student Teacher
Joralemon Jeffany 1
Campus School-School Visit-Student Teacher
Monroe Christina 1
Campus School-School Visit-Student Teacher
Simonton Amanda 1
Campus School-School Visit-Student Teacher
Totty Melissa 1 5
Chairs Anderson Becky 1
Chairs Clemens Linda 1
Chairs Cogdal Pam 1
Chairs McNeal Larry 1 4
COE Diversity Team Anderson Celia 1
COE Diversity Team Cross Beverly 1
COE Diversity Team Powell Angie 1
48
COE Diversity Team Wright Paul 1 4
COE Grad Curriculum Cmtee Lowther Deborah 1
COE Grad Curriculum Cmtee Lustig Dan 1
COE Grad Curriculum Cmtee Mullins Nelson Barbara 1
COE Grad Curriculum Cmtee Perkins Helen 1
COE Grad Curriculum Cmtee Rakow Ernie 1
COE Grad Curriculum Cmtee Weiss Larry 1 6
49
COE Undergrad Curriculum Cmtee Anthony Beverly 1
COE Undergrad Curriculum Cmtee Christopher Angela 1
COE Undergrad Curriculum Cmtee Flynt Sutton 1
COE Undergrad Curriculum Cmtee Heise Donalyn 1
COE Undergrad Curriculum Cmtee Hughes Annette 1
COE Undergrad Curriculum Cmtee Little Christina 1
COE Undergrad Curriculum Cmtee Magun-Jackson Susan 1
COE Undergrad Curriculum Cmtee Nelson Jennifer 1
COE Undergrad Curriculum Cmtee Okwumabua Onyejebose 1
COE Undergrad Curriculum Cmtee Robinson Nicole 1 10
Cooperating Teacher Canady Imogene 1
Cooperating Teacher Coleman Diane 1
Cooperating Teacher Hinkle Leanne 1
Cooperating Teacher Jenkins Rosalyn 1
Cooperating Teacher McWaters Anne 1
Cooperating Teacher Mitchell Rhonda 1
Cooperating Teacher Paris Anna 1
Cooperating Teacher Phillips Mary 1
Cooperating Teacher Ralston Sara 1
Cooperating Teacher Rogers Jan 1 10
Dean's Visit Alberg Marty 1
Dean's Visit Flynt Sutton 1
Dean's Visit Hamrick Mike 1 3
Faculty Dev Advisory Bridges Sara 1
Faculty Dev Advisory Eady Carol 1
Faculty Dev Advisory Morris Vivian 1
Faculty Dev Advisory Zoblotsky Todd 1 4
Faculty Senate Martindale Trey 1
Faculty Senate Petry John 1
Faculty Senate Stevens Ed 1
Faculty Senate Stockton Shelly 1 4
Information Technology Hurley Doug 1
Information Technology Rakow Ernie 1 2
Jackson-Millington Centers Cornelius Annette 1
Jackson-Millington Centers Murley Renee 1
50
Jackson-Millington Centers Page Linda 1
Jackson-Millington Centers Ransdell Mary 1
Jackson-Millington Centers Williamson Recey 1 5
Library Ford Sylverna 1
Library Li Yuhua 1
Library Martz Erin 1
Library Meredith Cathy 1 4
Licensure Officer Lanier Mary 1 1
MS Student Arnold Candi 1
MS Student Banker Sarah 1
MS Student Ferry Hugh 1
MS Student Gates Nadia 1
MS Student Harrison Sheila 1
MS Student Hubbard Megan 1
MS Student Mathis Rachell 1
MS Student Phillips Jessica 1
MS Student Thomas Julie 1
MS Student Wilson William 1 10
NCATE Steering Alberg Marty 1
NCATE Steering Anderson Becky 1
NCATE Steering Cross Beverly 1
NCATE Steering Flynt Sutton 1
NCATE Steering Hamrick Mike 1
NCATE Steering Johnston John 1
NCATE Steering Morris Vivian 1
NCATE Steering Rakow Ernie 1 8
Open Meeting Maxwell Sheryl 1
Open Meeting Reeves Kay 1
Open Meeting Rike Cheryl 1
Open Meeting Scott Jerrie 1 4
Other UM Faculty-Teacher Ed Greer Bonnie 1
Other UM Faculty-Teacher Ed Hollingsworth Dan 1
Other UM Faculty-Teacher Ed Murchison Vivian 1
Other UM Faculty-Teacher Ed Nickelberry Ellen 1
Other UM Faculty-Teacher Ed Savage Nealey 1
Other UM Faculty-Teacher Ed Sippel Brenda 1
51
Other UM Faculty-Teacher Ed Stevens Pat 1
Other UM Faculty-Teacher Ed Washington Candace 1 8
Overton HS -School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
Finely Bryan 1 1
Overton HS School Visit-Student Teacher
Clements Gaylynne 1 3
Overton HS School Visit-Student Teacher
Evans Amanda 1
Overton HS School Visit-Student Teacher
Johnson Justin 1
Principal Cooper Eric 1
Principal Cozzens Jeffry 1
Principal Jones Phyllis 1
Principal Williamson Raychellette 1 4
Program Coord Anderson Celia 1
Program Coord Byford Jeffrey 1
Program Coord Cooter Kathy 1
Program Coord Fagan Tom 1
Program Coord Hill-Clarke Kandi 1
Program Coord Martindale Trey 1
Program Coord Moberly Deb 1
Program Coord Murley Renee 1
Program Coord Seed Al 1
Program Coord Wright Paul 1 10
Program Graduate Forbess Julie 1
Program Graduate Goodman Asia 1
Program Graduate Hall Jennifer 1
Program Graduate Jones Kendall 1
Program Graduate Paige David 1
Program Graduate Sandlin Barbara 1 6
Provost Faudree Ralph 1 1
School Visit-Teacher-Sherwood Elem Ellis Jason 1
School Visit-Teacher-Sherwood Elem Forsman Deborah 1
School Visit-Teacher-Sherwood Elem Jernigan Abby 1
School Visit-Teacher-Sherwood Elem Springfield Shannon 1 4
Sherwood Elem School Visit- Carboni-Gorbea Livia 1
52
Cooperating Teacher
Sherwood Elem School Visit- Cooperating Teacher
Huff Allison 1 3
Sherwood Elem School Visit- Cooperating Teacher
Tolliver Angela 1
Sherwood Elem School Visit-Principal Lewis Yetta 1
Sherwood Elem School Visit-Principal Thompson Randy 1 2
SPA Writers Allen Lee 1
SPA Writers Blake Sally 1
SPA Writers Borek Jennifer 1
SPA Writers Key Shirley 1
SPA Writers MacGillivray Laurie 1
SPA Writers Ransdell Mary 1
SPA Writers Wesson Linda 1
SPA Writers Wright Paul 1 8
Student Advisors Anthony Beverly 1
Student Advisors Enfield Kim 1
Student Advisors Little Christina 1 3
Student Organization Leaders Billings Leah 1
Student Organization Leaders DiGaetano Mike 1
Student Organization Leaders Gikas Joanne 1
Student Organization Leaders Johnson Becky 1
Student Organization Leaders Murphy Danielle 1
Student Organization Leaders Paige David 1
Student Organization Leaders Stearnes Laurie 1 7
Student Teacher Brazley Marshetta 1
Student Teacher Brooke Susan 1
Student Teacher Cobb Katie 1
Student Teacher Henderson Catherine 1
Student Teacher House Jon 1
Student Teacher Kilpatrick Genny 1
Student Teacher Money Meghan 1
Student Teacher Parker Keosha 1
Student Teacher Weaver Torie 1 9
Teacher Education Advisory Council Abraham Katherine 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Anderson Celia 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Anthony Beverly 1
53
Teacher Education Advisory Council Castelow Teri 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Christopher Angela 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Cooter Kathy 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Copeland Susan 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Dalle Teresa 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Fagan Tom 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Heise Donalyn 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Hill-Clarke Kandi 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Hughes Annette 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Lanier Mary 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Little Christina 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Mims Clif 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Moberly Deb 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Nelson Jennifer 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Pruett Reo 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Wark David 1
Teacher Education Advisory Council Wark Marilyn 1 20
School Based Clinical Practice Christopher Angela 1
School Based Clinical Practice Nelson Jennifer 1 2
University Supervisor Cummings Bonnie 1
University Supervisor Dalle Teresa 1
University Supervisor Freilich Mark 1
University Supervisor Heise Donalyn 1
University Supervisor Hollis Angie 1
University Supervisor Turetzky Joel 1 6
Vice Provost Graduate Programs Rakow Ernie 1
Vice Provost Graduate Programs Weddle-West Karen 1 2
VP - Finance Lee Charles 1
VP - Finance Rakow Ernie 1 2
White Station Middle School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
Brown Anthony 1
White Station Middle School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
Clapsadle Chris 1
White Station Middle School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
Jedrzejewski Agata 1
White Station Middle School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
McConnell III John 1
54
White Station Middle School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
Quinn Skip 1
White Station Middle School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
Roberts Vera 1
White Station Middle School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
Smith Lakeisha 1
White Station Middle School Visit-Cooperating Teacher
Williams-Headd Debra 1 8
White Station Middle School Visit-Principal
Sullivan Eric 1 1
235 235
55
Poster Session Participants
College of Education Abraham Katherine 1
Three R's Program Poster Alberg Marty 1
School Library Information Specialist Poster
Allen Lee 1
Elementary Education Poster Anderson Celia 1
College of Education Anderson Rebecca 1
Special Education Poster Bicard Sara 1
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Poster Bicard David 1
Barbara K. Lipman Early Childhood School and Research Institute Poster
Brown Turner Sandra 1
New Teacher Center Poster Bryant Latisha 1
Early Childhood Program Develops Teacher Leaders Poster
Byram Deborah 1
Middle School and Secondary Education Poster
Carroll Melissa 1
M.S. Reading Education Program Poster Carter Amber 1
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Poster Casey Laura 1
Special Education Poster Cation Brittney 1
School Counselor Program Poster Cogdal Pamela 1
Special Education Poster Cooter Kathy 1
Campus School Poster Copeland Susan 1
Barbara K. Lipman Early Childhood School and Research Institute Poster
Cordeau Young Carol 1
College of Education Cross Beverly 1
Elementary Education Poster Cummings Bonnie 1
School Counselor Program Poster Epstein Jo 1
College of Education Flynt Sutton 1
Three R's Program Poster Gray Sheila
Early Childhood Advancement Institute Poster
Guntharp Sandy 1
College of Education Hamrick Michael 1
Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) Poster
Henderson Leslie 1
M.S. Reading Education Program Poster Hill-Clarke Kandi 1
School Counselor Program Poster Hilliard Shirley 1
Three R's Program Poster Jackson Kim 1
Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) Poster
Johnson Rebecca 1
Master's Project Poster Johnston John 1
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Poster Kee Brian 1
Master's Project Poster Lindsey Dawn 1
56
M.S. Reading Education Program Poster MacGillivray Laurie 1
Instructional Design and Technology Poster
Martindale Trey 1
College of Education McNeal Larry 1
Department of Leadership, School Administration & Supervision Poster
Miller Tishsha 1
Early Childhood Program Develops Teacher Leaders Poster
Moberly Deb 1
Special Education Poster Moore Jessica 1
Early Childhood Advancement Institute Poster
Morgan Cindy 1
Elementary Education Poster Morgan Mona 1
New Teacher Center Poster Morris Vivian 1
College of Education Murley Renée 1
M.S. Reading Education Program Poster Perkins Crystal 1
Master's Project Poster Rahman Nabilah 1
College of Education Rakow Ernest 1
School Counselor Program Poster Ruzicka Skip 1
Department of Leadership, School Administration & Supervision Poster
Sanders-Lawson Renée 1
Campus School Poster Scott Rebecca 1
Middle School and Secondary Education Poster
Seed Allen 1
Simmons Jeremy 1
Early Childhood Program Develops Teacher Leaders Poster
Sterns Laurie 1
Special Education Poster Thomas Cassie 1
Three R's Program Poster Ware Duncan 1
M.S. Reading Education Program Poster Wesley Darryl 1
Department of Leadership, School Administration & Supervision Poster
Wesson Linda 1
Three R's Program Poster Winfrey Eric 1
Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) Poster
Wright Paul 1
Total 56